AMPU: Suggested Fixes from Playtests

[Pringles]

Dodging the format here just to add this, hopefully it's ok. But maybe the provincial trait or something to strengthen people who are/become popular red state governors as Democrats, or blue state governors with Republicans needs to be done. I feel like the simulating of that in this game is very weak, and it was recently evident in the modern playtest. 

[MrPotatoTed]

10 minutes ago, Pringles said:

Dodging the format here just to add this, hopefully it's ok. But maybe the provincial trait or something to strengthen people who are/become popular red state governors as Democrats, or blue state governors with Republicans needs to be done. I feel like the simulating of that in this game is very weak, and it was recently evident in the modern playtest. 

Can you expand on this? Not sure I understand.

[Pringles]

13 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Can you expand on this? Not sure I understand.

So you have Charlie Baker, very popular blue state Governor getting destroyed by weaker candidates.

Joe Manchin getting destroyed in his own state at this point might be realistic, but nevertheless I don’t feel the game simulates people in these positions very well.

Popular politicians in hostile territory.

[MrPotatoTed]

6 minutes ago, Pringles said:

So you have Charlie Baker, very popular blue state Governor getting destroyed by weaker candidates.

Joe Manchin getting destroyed in his own state at this point might be realistic, but nevertheless I don’t feel the game simulates people in these positions very well.

Popular politicians in hostile territory.

Gotcha.  Does their personal ideology match state preferred ideology?

[Pringles]

3 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Gotcha.  Does their personal ideology match state preferred ideology?

No, and in some states where that change might be applicable, you risk them folding to other side if they go too far, no? 
 

I considered attempting that at first but to make Phil Scott or Charlie Baker a Lib/Prog, I just don’t think that’s really an accurate thing to do. Especially when it risks them folding. So it might be better just to strengthen the provincial trait by giving it another momentum boost.

Phil Scott being a Lib could make sense but he’s still a fiscal conservative.

[MrPotatoTed]

Gotcha.  There's already a potential bonus (75%+1) for folks who have the provincial trait.  Do they have it?  Or is there a different solution you had in mind?

[Pringles]

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Gotcha.  There's already a potential bonus (75%+1) for folks who have the provincial trait.  Do they have it?  Or is there a different solution you had in mind?

Looking at it, oddly enough Charlie Baker and Phil Scott at least, don’t have that. I would’ve though those two would be the prime examples of provincial. Joe Manchin as well. 
 

I think the trait needs to give maybe +2 momentum and perhaps some politicians need to be revisited in terms of their traits.

[MrPotatoTed]

1 minute ago, Pringles said:

Looking at it, oddly enough Charlie Baker and Phil Scott at least, don’t have that. I would’ve though those two would be the prime examples of provincial. Joe Manchin as well. 
 

I think the trait needs to give maybe +2 momentum and perhaps some politicians need to be revisited in terms of their traits.

Gotcha.  I'll defer to @vcczar.  I have no problem changing provincial to a +2 bonus, but figuring out which candidates deserve to have provincial added to them is beyond my scope.

[vcczar]

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Gotcha.  I'll defer to @vcczar.  I have no problem changing provincial to a +2 bonus, but figuring out which candidates deserve to have provincial added to them is beyond my scope.

Yeah, the Provincial trait was a late addition, so there's a bunch of people that should probably have it. In fact, most life-time US Reps probably should, as well as Governors. However, let me make a counter-argument for Baker and Scott. I would imagine if they secured the GOP nomination, that they'd probably do quite well in the general. I think Manchin might be a stronger argument for provincial. 

I think this is because I see Manchin doing well only in the Midwest and Baker and Scott doing well in CA, OR, WA, anywhere in New England, Mid-Atlantic, and possibly doing well in a general election if nominated for president. 

[Pringles]

3 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Gotcha.  I'll defer to @vcczar.  I have no problem changing provincial to a +2 bonus, but figuring out which candidates deserve to have provincial added to them is beyond my scope.

Thanks! Also should note: This was an equal environment. No party preference in favor of anyone. It’d make more sense if these Democrats or Republicans/ vice versa we’re losing in a super favorable environment. But yeah.

[Pringles]

3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, the Provincial trait was a late addition, so there's a bunch of people that should probably have it. In fact, most life-time US Reps probably should, as well as Governors. However, let me make a counter-argument for Baker and Scott. I would imagine if they secured the GOP nomination, that they'd probably do quite well in the general. I think Manchin might be a stronger argument for provincial. 

I think this is because I see Manchin doing well only in the Midwest and Baker and Scott doing well in CA, OR, WA, anywhere in New England, Mid-Atlantic, and possibly doing well in a general election if nominated for president. 

Makes sense. Whichever way you think would make most sense though concerning at least mildly improving chances of people like Baker and Scott. Because it’s very possible in super favorable environments, but the main thing is that these people, at least concerning real life are able to do good in favorable, unfavorable, or even equal environments. Not to sound like a realism “my immersion is ruined” kinda guy, it’s a game. I just think maybe something quick and simple could be done to make it easier to give them a stepping stone. 
 

I’ve seen Baker, Scott, Hogan, etc. used once concerning elections. But they were already in their respective positions (except Scott) so it may be tedious and a little too difficult to build and develop them, making them pointless for local positions unless you get extremely lucky haha.

[MrPotatoTed]

Topic for discussion:

Right now, I have it so that if a nominee gets rejected (either by committee or by Senate at large) they get tainted with the "Controversial" trait, making it even harder for them to get Senate approval for another job in the future.

And if they already have controversial, then I have them gain incompetent -- not that they literally can't do the job anymore, but that there's a perception that they shouldn't be nominated anymore.  They're too toxic/untouchable.  This mirrors the fact that Generals and Admirals who get fired for poor performance get incompetent to prevent them being hired for the same job again.  Getting incompetent means you can no longer be appointed/nominated to any job except the Legislative branch.  And you can of course still be elected as well.

Does this sound right to folks?  Or would you prefer that even if someone is defeated in a confirmation hearing, they're still eligible to be nominated again in the future.  

From my limited research, it seems that defeated nominees tend to drop off the face of the earth, more often than not.

[Pringles]

9 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Topic for discussion:

Right now, I have it so that if a nominee gets rejected (either by committee or by Senate at large) they get tainted with the "Controversial" trait, making it even harder for them to get Senate approval for another job in the future.

And if they already have controversial, then I have them gain incompetent -- not that they literally can't do the job anymore, but that there's a perception that they shouldn't be nominated anymore.  They're too toxic/untouchable.  This mirrors the fact that Generals and Admirals who get fired for poor performance get incompetent to prevent them being hired for the same job again.  Getting incompetent means you can no longer be appointed/nominated to any job except the Legislative branch.  And you can of course still be elected as well.

Does this sound right to folks?  Or would you prefer that even if someone is defeated in a confirmation hearing, they're still eligible to be nominated again in the future.  

From my limited research, it seems that defeated nominees tend to drop off the face of the earth, more often than not.

As long as it’s a chance they get these traits when they’re shot down I think it’s great. There’s a few rare ones I can think of. That is nominees recovering from being rejected, but overall yeah, they typically aren’t welcome to try again.

[MrPotatoTed]

Just now, Pringles said:

As long as it’s a chance they get these traits when they’re shot down I think it’s great. There’s a few rare ones I can think of. That is nominees recovering from being rejected, but overall yeah, they typically aren’t welcome to try again.

Right now, it's automatic unless they have a trait that prevents it.  For example, Alexander Hamilton just got defeated for US Bank President, and already had controversial.

But he also has bookkeeper, which is incompatible with incompetent per the rules.  Rolled, bookkeeper blocked incompetent.

If somebody does get incompetent, they could later get a trait that might knock it out (like bookkeeper, there are others as well).

[vcczar]

24 minutes ago, Pringles said:

Makes sense. Whichever way you think would make most sense though concerning at least mildly improving chances of people like Baker and Scott. Because it’s very possible in super favorable environments, but the main thing is that these people, at least concerning real life are able to do good in favorable, unfavorable, or even equal environments. Not to sound like a realism “my immersion is ruined” kinda guy, it’s a game. I just think maybe something quick and simple could be done to make it easier to give them a stepping stone. 
 

I’ve seen Baker, Scott, Hogan, etc. used once concerning elections. But they were already in their respective positions (except Scott) so it may be tedious and a little too difficult to build and develop them, making them pointless for local positions unless you get extremely lucky haha.

I don't see any reason to give them provincial or any sort of boost until Early Release is out to see how they develop on average. The state should have a bias that makes them more attractive in their states or at least doesn't penalize them. 

[Cal]

1. Pre-12th Amendment elections could be made more historically accurate and unpredictable by accounting for the individual desires of the Kingmakers/Governors that are making the decision. Also, there's nothing saying if states all vote at once or if there's a particular order that they'll vote in. I'd say that all states should vote at once so that players can't account for decisions in other states. 

2. I've tested the only pre-12th Amendment election so far under the new rules. They're definitely better than the old rules, but it's one of the very few areas of the game that doesn't take traits and rogue statesman into account. 

3. Change the rules to this, reflecting traits and making it definitive when voting occurs. (changes in bold)

Election: Once both parties select their Pres nom, VP nom, and alternates, then voting will proceed in every state simultaneously. Every elector gets 2 votes (technically 1 for Pres and 1 for VP). Use the standard Election Day rules for states that allow the popular vote with the top two finishers in that state getting 1 vote each in that state.

Otherwise, the election is a two-step process: initial orders from the player or CPU, and then an opportunity for individual Kingmakers and Governors to change their vote based on traits.

Step 1: players will instruct politicians kingmakers and the two candidates that get the most kingmaker votes will get 1 vote each in that state. Should no politicians with kingmaker exist in a state, then the player controlling the Gov will make the initial decision. 

[CPU: The CPU will support the party leaders pick for president 100% of the time, and the VP picked by the party leader 75% of the time. 25% of the time, they will select the one of the alternatives of their party (randomly). There are two exceptions. See the George Washington 1st President below.  The other exception is if an alternate comes from their home state, they will pick that person for their 2nd vote (VP choice) 50% of the time. 

Step 2: Individual Kingmakers and Governors may, if their traits allow, cast their vote for a different candidate than agreed upon by the player or CPU. 

Disharmonious: has a 50% chance to refuse to vote for a candidate of the opposite party, even if they were instructed to in the previous step. If the Disharmonious elector is a candidate, they will always vote for themselves. Otherwise, will randomly select from a same-party nominee.

Pliable: has a 50% chance of bending to the will of the Party Leader's selection, even if they were instructed to vote for an alternate candidate in the previous step. 

Puritan: has a 50% chance of voting for a same-ideology candidate, regardless of party, if they were instructed to vote for a candidate with a different ideology in the previous step. If also Disharmonious, only consider same-party candidates. If the selected candidate is two or more steps from the Puritan's personal ideology, make this a 90% chance.

Debater: has a 25% chance of converting the vote of another same-state Kingmaker, as long as that Kingmaker does not have Puritan. If the same-state Kingmaker has Pliable, make this a 50% chance. Add 10% a chance each for Orator, Charisma, and Likable. 

Integrity: A Kingmaker/Governor with Integrity has a 25% of refusing to vote for a candidate with "Controversial". The politician will instead vote for a random same-party candidate, preferring those with Integrity. If no other same-party candidates exist, they will vote for an opposite-party candidate with Integrity. If still no candidate exists, they will revert to their original vote. 

A Kingmaker/Governor who's personal ideology is maxed in the opposing party's direction has a 50% chance to vote for an opposite party candidate sharing their personal ideology if there is one. This increases to a 75% chance if the Kingmaker/Governor also has Puritan. 

Result: The top two finishers, regardless of party, when the 2 votes for each state are added up, the top vote getter will be President and 2nd vote getter will be VP. Both will lose “obscure.” If a tie, the vote goes to the US House. 

[MrPotatoTed]

I haven't had a chance to test out the "old" new rules yet, but when I get to the 1796 election I'll try it both ways to see how it flows.

[Cal]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I haven't had a chance to test out the "old" new rules yet, but when I get to the 1796 election I'll try it both ways to see how it flows.

The new rules are great! But, I just see how we can make it fit more in the spirit of the rest of the rules where it's not just the player/CPUs commands that matter -- the individual you're commanding plays a role and can affect the outcome too. This puts it more in line with Leaders Emerge, Congress in Session, and the nomination voting part of the Executive Office phase. 

[OrangeP47]

@vcczar@MrPotatoTed

More of a rules clarification than a fix.  I'm entering candidates for election, and we have a candidate who's served 1 1/2 terms because he was yoinked for the cabinet or ambassadorship or something at some point, but the state has 2 term term limits.  Is he allowed to run again, for a full term, since technically he didn't hit 2 full terms his first time?

[vcczar]

22 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

@vcczar@MrPotatoTed

More of a rules clarification than a fix.  I'm entering candidates for election, and we have a candidate who's served 1 1/2 terms because he was yoinked for the cabinet or ambassadorship or something at some point, but the state has 2 term term limits.  Is he allowed to run again, for a full term, since technically he didn't hit 2 full terms his first time?

I'd probaby allow it. I feel like being pedantic with the calculation would be one more thing that could make the game run slowly. 

[OrangeP47]

Also this isn't a fix at all, but I just wanted to come back and say I REALLY like that we expanded how many "focus" reps a state can have now that we've actually done the census.  NY for this decade in the 1840 test will have 7 focus reps... and while some might say "sure, that's just numbers, what does it matter if one number is different than another?" well here's the thing.  The left-wing faction of democrats has had a real hard time getting office holders, in part because all the left wing democrats are confined to big states like NY but there were only a few offices to go around.  Now, for the first time ever, they're going to be able to run pretty much all their people who have been sitting around useless up until this point while the factions not as heavily invested in the big states are going to struggle to challenge them all, so it means while they won't win every race, they're sure to actually get some elected officials now and be able to build and grow.  In other words, this is exactly what big states needed in order to deal with the fact that they had so many pols just sitting around doing nothing there.  Great job everyone. (NY was really obvious, but to a lesser extent this is being played out in OH and PA too)

Edited September 17, 2022 by OrangeP47

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

Third Parties

In the Civil War playtest we are entering a presidential election with the Free Soil Party even triggered, so we will have that third party active in the election. We are also sitting on the cusp of the meters allowing for a third party to happen too, so would there be the possibility of there being two third parties akin to our 1860 election? Either way that might need to be clarified in the rules to allow or disallow this. 

Also when a third party triggers, can it ever come from the faction of a faction running for president? Example, Red faction 1 is running as their party's presidential candidate. A third party challenge can be triggered from their faction, would they be able to run as the third party presidential nominee as well?

Also also if three ideologies can run third party challenges, do all of them have the chance to do so? This would very likely be extremely rare, but something that could happen.

[ConservativeElector2]

On 9/16/2022 at 7:57 PM, vcczar said:

Yeah, the Provincial trait was a late addition, so there's a bunch of people that should probably have it.

I like the addition.

But I wanted to ask a different question. Today I realized that Janice McGeachin is marked as Cons, which makes sense because she supported Mitt Romney in '08 and '12 but she's now on the far-right wing of the GOP. So I guess she needs an ideology switch date added.

With your permission I can add it myself.

[vcczar]

1 hour ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

I like the addition.

But I wanted to ask a different question. Today I realized that Janice McGeachin is marked as Cons, which makes sense because she supported Mitt Romney in '08 and '12 but she's now on the far-right wing of the GOP. So I guess she needs an ideology switch date added.

With your permission I can add it myself.

Sure. Go ahead. 

[MrPotatoTed]

@vcczar The legislative proposal "Land grants to encourage settlement in Ohio" requires that Ohio is not a state yet -- but also gives points to the Senators and Governor of Ohio.  Since the law requires that Ohio not be a state, there naturally cannot be Senators or a Governor.